Today (Thursday), in Detroit, a federal judge ruled that the illegal covert spying program put in place by the Bush administration is unconstitutional and ordered the administration to stop it immediately. But the administration has given every possible indication of its unwillingness to comply.
According to an article by Tom Brune, in Newsday this evening:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the controversial program violates privacy and free speech rights, the separation of powers, and the law passed to govern domestic surveillance.

Brune also reports:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "We couldn't disagree more with this ruling."

If you remember pre-totalitarian America, you'll recall that court rulings were once considered the law of the land, regardless of whether or not the White House agreed. But things are very different now. So different, in fact, that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is theoretically in charge of seeing that justice is done in this country, heaped contempt on Judge Taylor's ruling, saying:

"We will continue to utilize the program to ensure that America is safer."

Safer from what? Our Constitutionally-protected freedoms?

According to the decision rendered by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor,

"The public interest is clear, in this matter ... It is the upholding of our Constitution."

Further,

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," she wrote.

"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

Ahhh, the Bill of Rights. How quaint. Right, Alberto?

Brune points out that the administration may be able to wiggle out of the ruling by using a very shifty strategy for their appeal.

[S]ome constitutional experts questioned whether Taylor's ruling will survive the government's appeal to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

Those courts could simply reject the case by saying the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit, since they cannot prove the government eavesdropped on them because it is a state secret, the experts said.

If they can't get the case dismissed on that technicality, they will most likely be forced to fall back on their favorite time-tested techniques: denial and obfuscation.

Mr. Gonzales said he remained confident that the program was constitutional, and that Congress had given the president all the authority he needed when it authorized the use of military force after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Thus covert spying is conflated with the use of military force, allegedly to protect the country.

The dirty little secret in all this has been protected by the mainstream media, but as Abraham Lincoln so correctly said, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

Tom Brune:

The New York Times revealed in December that after the Sept. 11 attacks President George W. Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists between contacts here and abroad.

David Stout:

The judge’s ruling is the latest chapter in the continuing debate over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which inspired the eavesdropping program and other surveillance measures that the administration says are necessary and constitutional and its critics say are intrusive.

I've read many other accounts telling essentially the same tale: that the administration initiated this covert illegal spying program after September 11, 2001; that the program is essential to preventing "another 9/11"; and that we might have been able to avoid 9/11 altogether if the program had been in place before then.

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

"The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,"' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. "This undermines that assertion."'

Consider the implications: If the secret illegal spying program was in place before 9/11, then it could not have been instituted in response to the attacks of that day. And therefore it can't properly be called part of the War on Terror.

What, then, could be its purpose?

If it's not part of the so-called War on so-called Terror, then what is it part of?

The undeclared War on Political Dissent in America?

I'm just asking!

NOTES: Both Tom Brune's piece in Newsday and David Stout's report in the New York Times have been changed since I first read them.

Unlike what happened to the New York Times article which I quoted in a piece yesterday, these changes are superficial and do not significantly change the meaning of the report. Or do they?

Newsday has changed its headline from "Judge orders halt to Bush's domestic spying" to "Domestic spying declared unconstitutional", and clarified a few phrases. You can find the text of the previous version here.

The NYT piece has the same headline as before, but four paragraphs have been added at the end. Maybe it's an insignificant thing, but the previous version left the last word with Judge Taylor:

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.”

And the newer version ends on a much different note, from Republican Senator Bill Frist:

“We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm,” he said. “I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

UPDATE 1: In the interests of full disclosure: This is not the original version of this article. I have removed one passage and changed the wording of another, upon being advised that a source I had quoted was unreliable. I apologize to anyone who read the previous version.

I admire the writers and editors who update their writing in the interests of clarity and/or truth. I think that's what happened to the Newsday article. I know that's what happened to this one.

UPDATE 2: Let's look at the NYT piece again. After their first posting, they added two paragraphs of comments from each side, and they just happened to quote the Republicans last.

Democrats said Judge Taylor saw things the right way. “Today’s district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration’s illegal wiretapping program,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. “The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so.”

Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration should stop “poking holes in the Constitution” and concentrate on “plugging holes in homeland security.”

But Republicans lined up behind the administration. "America cannot stop terrorists while wearing blinders,” said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. “We stop terrorists by watching them, following them, listening in on their plans, and then arresting them before they can strike. Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, agreed. “We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm,” he said. “I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

Two Democrats, then two Republicans.

Does that matter?

The Newsday piece only has one paragraph of comments from each side, but it also quotes the Republican last.

The ruling also touched off partisan political sniping. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate Democratic leader, charged, "The administration's decision to ignore the Constitution and the Congress has come at the expense of the security of the American people."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman responded in a statement attacking Democrats and the 73-year-old judge, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter: "Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security."

What do you think? Do you think that matters?

I can remember reports from the fall of 2004 about "John Kerry for President" rallies where the last paragraph consisted of quotes from Karl Rove.

Does that matter?

When I was debating I always wanted the last word.

Was that stupid?

UPDATE 3: Now that I've been thinking about balance and fairness and so on, I've decided to leave you with two more links --- editorials from USA TODAY:

O'REILLY: OK. Last question for you. The fact that the NSA was able to intercept some of these phone calls that were made in the United States to Al Qaeda in Britain by using the very controversial — although I understand warrants were obtained for this by the FISA court. In your opinion, does that mean that the Bush administration is justified now in its original policy? Is this a big win politically for you guys?

CHERTOFF: Well, Bill, of course I'm not going to confirm particular techniques were used, but I do think this.

In light of Gen. Hayden's claim that the reason the Bush Administration decided to eavesdrop outside of FISA is because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was too onerous (and prevented them from obtaining warrants they needed to eavesdrop), there is a fact which I have not seen discussed anywhere but which now appears extremely significant, at least to me.

In June, 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced legislation (S. 2659) which would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA which Gen. Hayden said is what necessitated the Administration bypassing FISA. Specifically, DeWine's legislation proposed:

to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

In other words, DeWine's bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the "probable cause" barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA.

During that time, the Administration was asked to advise Congress as to its position on this proposed amendment to loosen the standard for obtaining FISA warrants, and in response, they submitted a Statement from James A. Baker, the Justice Department lawyer who oversees that DoJ's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the group that "prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court)." If anyone would be familiar with problems in obtaining FISA warrants, it would be Baker.

And yet, look at what Baker said in his Statement. He began by effusively praising the Patriot Act on the ground that the 72-hour window provided by the Patriot Act had given the Administration the speed and flexibility it needed in order to engage in eavesdropping:

The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.

And then, regarding DeWine's specific proposal to lower the evidentiary standard required for a FISA warrant, Baker said that:

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

So, in June, 2002, the Administration refused to support elimination of the very barrier ("probable cause") which Gen. Hayden claimed yesterday necessitated the circumvention of FISA. In doing so, the Administration identified two independent reasons for opposing this amendment. One reason was that the Justice Department was not aware of any problems which the Administration was having in getting the warrants it needed under FISA:

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

If the administration was doing the warrantless wiretapping before 9/11, and it seems that we have evidence that they were, this moots their whole Authorization To Use ... Force argument. I left out the word "military" in there, because I think that word wasn't in the original authorization title... but can't remember for sure.

They broke the law. It's also against the law to go back and retroactively make criminal acts legal. ITMFA!

A cell phone is left behind in a public place - and someone has taken it. The owner has good relations with someone at Homeland Security - and asks for help in recovering the phone.

The following occurs in TEN MINUTES:

Homeland Security accesses its database of EVERY cell phone number, confirms the name and address of its owner, and pulls up the call history of the missing phone. Several calls have been made from the phone since it went missing.

Homeland Security instantly compiles the list of calls, cross-referenced to the names and addresses of each individual called, vectored to the cell towers used to transmit the calls. Next they pull up the digitial recording of the calls made, listen to the calls, and ascertain that two teenage boys have stolen the phone and are using it to call friends.

Homeland Security phones one of the call recipients to ascertain the identity and home address of the two boys.

Next - a text message is sent to the two boys on the cell phone they stole, informing them that they have exactly one hour to return the phone to a specific place of business known to be within one mile of the boy's present location, or they will be greeted by Federal Marshalls shortly thereafter.

They couldn't lower the standard without a Constitutional Amendment. It's in the 4th Amendment that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. Hayden was famously unaware of this, and by your account DeWine was also unaware of this. WHAT KIND OF BOOBS ARE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY? Dangerous ones....

You can't break the law and rule the world unless you have access to every piece of data that exists - in order to know what your enemies are up to. In this case, the enemies of the Bush Administration just happen to be the American people - the laws of the land, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

The most sinister thing I've witnessed out of these Republican goons was when Lindsey Graham was questioning Gonzales and said:

"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

"I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat. "Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in April of 2002, Hayden lied under oath about the NSA Domestic Spying Program:

But as Media Matters noted in response to the earlier comparisons, in contrast with the Bush administration's surveillance program, the eavesdropping of U.S. residents conducted under Echelon was carried out in compliance with FISA, according to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

In his April 12, 2002, testimony before the House Intelligence Committee Tenet denied that Echelon was used to spy on U.S residents without a warrant. He said, "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Then-National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden --- currently Bush's nominee for CIA director --- also appeared before the committee and testified, "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."

By contrast, since the disclosure of their warrantless domestic surveillance program, Bush has asserted --- and administration officials such as Hayden have repeated --- that he possesses the authority to eavesdrop on U.S. residents' communications without FISA approval.

CRITICAL U.S. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY COMPUTER
NETWORKS USING ISRAELI "SECURITY" SOFTWARE

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

The most critical computer and communication networks used by the U.S. government and military are secured by encryption software written by an Israeli "code breaker" tied to an Israeli state-run scientific institution.

The National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. intelligence agency with the mandate to protect government and military computer networks and provide secure communications for all branches of the U.S. government uses security software written by an Israeli code breaker whose home office is located at the Weizmann Institute in Israel.

A Bedford, Massachusetts-based company called RSA Security, Inc. issued a press release on March 28, 2006, which revealed that the NSA would be using its security software:

"U.S. Department of Defense Agency Selects RSA Security Encryption Software" was the headline of the company's press release which announced that the National Security Agency had selected its encryption software to be used in the agency's "classified communications project."

AFP inquired with the NSA about its use of Israeli-made security software for classified communications projects and asked why such outsourcing was not seen as a national security threat. Why is "America’s cryptologic organization" using Israeli encryption codes?

NSA spokesman Ken White said that the agency is "researching" the matter and would respond in the coming week.

American Free Press has previously revealed that scores of "security software" companies – spawned and funded by the Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence agency – have proliferated in the United States.

Unisys integrated Israeli security software, provided by the Israel-based Check Point Software Technologies and Eurekify, into its own software, so that Israeli software, written by Mossad-linked companies, now "secures" the most sensitive computers in the U.S. government and commercial sector.

The Mossad-spawned computer security firms typically have a main office based in the U.S. while their research and development is done in Israel. The Mossad start-up firms usually have short lives before they are acquired for exaggerated sums of money by a larger company, enriching their Israeli owners in the process and integrating the Israeli directors and their Mossad-produced software into the parent company.

Mahalo to Mike Malloy having set up a link to thank Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for having the courage to stand up for the Constitution of the US. I was able to thank this Courageous woman. The link is on Mike Malloy's home page at www.mikemalloy.com She deserves support from us all. here's my brief thank you I sent to her...

Thank you for standing up for the constitutition of the United States. You, by your ruling on the illegal wiretapping, have given me a new breath of hope for the future of this country I love so much. I just wanted you to know you are not alone.

Christopher Bollyn, investigative journalist for American Free Press, was beaten and arrested on trumped-up charges at his home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

Excerpt:

Apart from my un-disclosable investigation, the other calls were about how Jacob "Kobi" Alexander was able to flee with more than $60 million dollars last week, several months after it was public knowledge that he and the other Israelis working with Comverse Technology, Ltd. had swindled hundred of millions through fraudulent stock options trades. This has been going on for years, and The Wall Street Journal and Globes (Israel) reported the names and the amounts last March. For crying out loud, my newspaper, American Free Press, reported it in April 2005.

I wanted to know from the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's office how this Kobi Alexander was able to wire $60 million to his account in Israel and flee New York without any body stopping him.

Remember that Chertoff had been tasked with tracking the funding behind 9/11 under the name “OPERATION GREENQUEST.” In reality – this was an effort to coverup the funding trail:

"The FBI-Justice move [to take over the investigation], pushed by DOJ Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, has enraged Homeland Security officials, however. They accuse the bureau [Chertoff] of sabotaging Greenquest investigations—by failing to turn over critical information to their agents—and trying to obscure a decadelong record of lethargy [actually criminal obstruction] in which FBI offices failed to aggressively pursue terror-finance cases.

“They (the FBI) won’t share anything with us,” said a Homeland Security official. “Then they go to the White House and they accuse us of not sharing … If they can’t take it over, they want to kill it.”

So Who Is This Chertoff Guy?

If you're a 9-11 researcher, then you already know that: "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece." The cousin goes by the name of Benjamin Chertoff, whom the Hearst (yellow journalism inc.) publication Popular Mechanics made the "senior researcher" for the piece. This Popular Mechanics article was so ridiculously bad, that it claimed:

Popular Mechanics: "In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

If you're not laughing out loud, it's probably because you're crying out loud.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report.

In fact, he said, the nature of the investigation changed after the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, he said. At that point, he said, the bureau took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign Counterintelligence Investigation, or FCI.

FBI investigations into possible links to the September 11 attacks are usually carried by the bureau's counterterrorism division, not its counterintelligence division.

"An FCI means not only that it was serious but also that it was handled at a very high level and very tightly," the former official said. That view was echoed by several former FBI officials interviewed.

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal --- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts interviewed by the Forward. All failed their tests.

LA Times: "When President Clinton took office, he fired all the U.S. attorneys who had served under his Republican predecessor except one: New Jersey U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff."

That's some exceptional guy, as the article shows. It reveals something quite out of the ordinary about Michael Chertoff.

Not a word from anyone in power about Chertoff's successful defense of a known bin Laden financier. Even though the Bergen Record newspaper had published the facts of the case in a series of articles. This news was never picked up nationally --- somehow not being newsworthy enough to rate a few lines in the major press --- and they call this "freedom" and "democracy," ad nauseum.

One would think that, since the MSM changes its story from hour to hour on many issues lately, that wise and astute people would want to get their information directly "from the horse's mouth".

I posted links to the case information directly from the Federal District Court yesterday (link here).

Once again, Judge Taylor's Opinion is linked here, and the injunction against NSA spying on Americans is linked here.

Like the poet and songwriter once said:

Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin' that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone's tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D. A.
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't try "No Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothesYou don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows

If the lie the republican dictatorship spreads about that spying stuff being soooooooooooooo goooooooood, then why didn't they know that the Iraqi war is spreading:

Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.

Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis marched in the streets of Baghdad recently, shouting "Death to America". Those protests were larger than the Iran Hostage protests decades ago where they also chanted "Death to America".

So we set up a government in Iraq that supports Hezbollah and Iran ... and protesters here who do not want the 4th Amendment of our Constitution to be violated are "helping turrists"?

I'm beginning to think that Jonathan Turley is my favoite guest on Keith Oberman's show. His spot tonight would be a very good video to put up. The transcript is not on MSNBC's site yet.

Personally, I think Bush is going to regret the day he ever took advice form Alberto Gonzoles. This guy is not the brightest bulb. None of these guys are. How long is it going to take for people to realize these people are not cleverly manipulating the law. THEY ARE SIMPLY BREAKING IT and letting the media spin it! Not difficult, or intelligent. Just thugish and stupid. They rate an appearance on "The Worlds Stupidest Criminals" show, not the world stage!

Turley also hands Arlen Specter his ass in advance, if he decides to pass the law he crafted with Dick Cheney to address the FISA issue.

The Now program on PBS is going to cover this Friday. Should be a good one!

Hey Dredd! Surprisingly well, in fact. When I got here fifteen plus years ago, under Bush I, a dollar was worth 24 Czech crowns. At the end of the Big Dawg's second term a dollar got you almost 40 crowns. Now a buck gets you 21 crowns and change. So working for crowns ain't half bad these days, and I think I'd better put the few dollars I still have into crowns before it goes to 10, or whatever. Nothing like having inbred simpletons running the store, hey? A while back I was traveling in southern Bavaria, and stopped by to look at the town where I lived and worked for the Army Security Agency (actually the NSA) many years ago. I was curious to see if the listening post had survived the end of the cold war. Yep! Now it's a huge Echelon station. I'm glad I got out of that game. I suppose this would get me shit-listed with the bad guys if I weren't almost certainly already there...

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

boy bush the bitch: YOU don't have to tap my phone. I'll say it all right here. I will see that you go to prison ASAP for the rest of your life. Your family has caused all of the high profile mass murder in the past two centuries ( from the west, anyhow ). Your father coordinated the assassination of JFK, and probably RFK as well. He also was a big player in the genocidal distribution of crack cocaine in the 80's.
YOU my boy, are the lowest common denominator satanist spoiled baby boomer who likes to rape, likes to kill, and loves that textbook latent homosexual Alberto Gonzalez. Want me to continue, boy ? You're INVITED to listen in on what I have to say TO YOU.

Eh Ringo,
On behalf of John, Paul, and George i fully agree that All these BUSHIT ADMINISTRATION TERRRORIST AND THEIR DEMOCRAT ENABLERS MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE 911 CONTROLLED DEMOLITION STYLE FROM THE TOP DOWN.
THEY MUST BE COURT MASHALLED FOR THEIR MULTIPLE CRIMES AND THEN SENT TO JAIL. Besides their illegitimate OIL war, war against all species (THEY reversed over 200 environental laws in this country alone) and war against Americans be it the e-voting machines FORCED ON US to steal elections or the outright shreading of our constitution, these bastards must get their own treatment. They must be tortured repeatedly in the same overseas jails where their own doctrine dictates that this type of treatment is ethical.

The NSA and the administration are wasting their time and their valuable assets by monitoring all U.S. electronic traffic. Their focus should be on known and probable radical Islamist communication. They should have no problem getting court orders for these kinds of monitorings. The Constitution, the greatest body of law in the history of humankind, is sometimes an inconvenient thing. It's like the Miranda ruling. The police howled that Miranda would hinder their investigations and work. Instead, Miranda made for a better, more professional police force. The Fourth Amendment is an act of genius which should not be summarily dismissed, which, alas, is what is happening now. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are a bunch of extremely dangerous dummies. They have no idea of what a society should be.